Discussion Threads

Transcripts of some of the discussions on
CYC-Net's email discussion group

Translate this page

Lack of structure and rules

I am a youth care worker in a group home with at risk youth.
Recently I have become frustrated with the lack of structure and rules
within our center. It has created a feeling being useless as the house
is a free for all and the kids have developed an "I don't care
attitude". Our approach is a relationship based philosophy and does work
well at times but when acting out behavior starts without rules and
consequences it seems useless and I feel I could be replaced by a
camera. Is there a need for Structure and Rules and is it too late to
take back the "free for all" from the kids placed here? Any input would
be appreciated.

Dave

...

Hi David

As an initial and too brief response, I would like to say that
"structure" and "rules" are not the same at all. A facility can have a
lot of rules, but if they are ignored and inconsistently enforced, there
is no therapeutic structure. At the same time, a facility can have very
few rules but have a lot of structure as staff use their relationships
to guide children/youth into learning how to respect limits, operate
within boundaries, etc. I know of NO theory that implies that having
kids operate within a "free for all" is good for them, or is in any way
helpful in teaching them how to live within a structured society. It is
my belief that no child/teen feels safe when they are left to their own
devices, since their immaturity renders them unable to solve complicated
problems without guidance from more mature people. Sometimes what seems
to be them "running amok" is actually a blatant display of anxiety based
on insecurity caused by an environment without sufficient structure for
them to feel safe. I never believe kids when they say they don't care.
They may not know how to care, but all kids care about getting the
safety and security they need from adults who are committed to keeping
them safe - both physically and emotionally.

Lorraine Fox

...

David

How do you demonstrate unconditional acceptance and love for children
who have never recieved it? These are children who don't know what
unconditional love is (otherwise they would be at home... behaviour
problems and all), so they will act in a manner to get you to also
reject them. By implementing something that seems like "no rules" you
are creating an opportunity for these kids to learn to trust you. You
cannot build a relationship with these kids if they don't trust you
first, and it may take a long time to get there. You want them to be
motivated to do things for themselves because they want to, not because
they will lose privileges if they don't. Fear is no way to raise a
child.

Lisa

...

Dave,

I believe it is not too late to restructure and come up with some
solid rules and routines that make the staff and the residents feel
safe. I believe that even though the kids will not admit it, they feel a
lot safer in a group home setting when there is a solid structure in
place and the rules are clear and concise. You might receive some
resistance at the beginning from the residents; however if everyone
stays consistent in what you decide to put in place, in no time it will
work. My favorite saying is "Discipline means love and understanding"
Hope this helps.

Regards

Dave Zimmerman

...

David, unfortunately this sounds all too familiar. The trouble comes
from the top. The mandate needs to be established so that the frontline
staff apply it. Once that part is done then it is up to the supervisors
to ensure the frontline staff uphold the goals and agenda of the agency.
If the problem is the frontline staff not doing their jobs, then again
this matter should be addressed by the supervisors and reprimand should
be done accordingly. If frontliners are not doing their part in
maintaining the rules and regulations then the program will fall apart.
I don't know if this will help but you need to voice your concerns at
staff meetings.

Carl Faria

...

Dear Dave,

Relationships and Structure and Rules

I feel for you, and with you, when you say that the social climate of
your house feels like a 'free for all' and that your kids have developed
an 'I don't care attitude' and that all this is creating a feeling that
you and your colleagues are 'being useless'. I know how many times I
have felt like this, but I do struggle with your idea that there is
somehow a battle going on between a 'relationship philosophy' which you
suggest does not work 'when acting out behaviour starts' and the need
for 'structure and rules'. My view is that relationships are fundamental
to our work - indeed they are our work - just as a healthy good enough
attachment relationship between ourselves as infants/children/
adolescents and a parent figure is essential for the healthy development
of each and every one of us. It is when a relationship breaks down such
as when you describe yourself as feeling you 'could be replaced by a
camera' that efforts to work on the relationship must become a paramount
concern. In a circumstance such as you describe communication in all
aspects of the running of the house may be so fraught that the
relationships between adults and the young people - however problematic
achieving this may seem - must as a priority be re-established and
sustained.

This is not to say that relationships themselves should not have the
boundaries of structures and rules - both formal and informal - but we
should bear in mind that human relationships are dynamic in a complex
way and there is a need for flexibility because we are engaged with
unique individual youngsters. One size does not fit all. In addition we
often work with youngsters who are troubled and we must accept that
there will be many times in our work when we are working at the
boundaries of what is or is not socially acceptable. When this happens
it seems to me both staff and the youngsters can be emotionally affected
but it would not be helpful for any youngsters if we withdraw from our
relationship with them as a consequence of our despair at their
behaviour and then demand that they obey rules we set for them. If they
don't obey them what then? For then we will not have our relationships
left to fall back on. No, it seems to me we should stick with the
relationship even in the most troubled of times and also use our
relationships with our colleagues while we are out working on the floor,
in handover meetings, in supervision and in staff meetings to reflect on
our own practice as well as the kids' behaviour and consider how we can
further develop our relationships with the kids for therapeutic gain.

As an aside, I think too that if there is a general consensus that
everything is going well in a children's home in the sense that all
behaviours of the children - and staff - are socially acceptable and
commendable then there is something seriously wrong or seriously right
going on and we should either be very alarmed or we should all
voluntarily admit ourselves to residential care. I am persuaded that
committed, informed, tenacious, insightful and well-resourced
residential child care can help many troubled youngsters by providing
them the kind of relationships they need with adults, but I am also
persuaded to expect and accept that our work is by its very nature
problematic.

I apologise if I have seemed to sermonise, but I do believe in the
power of healthy (and by healthy I certainly do not mean problem-free)
adult/child relationships and I also think that your implied wish not to
be just a camera suggests to me that you are concerned to be in good
relationships with the kids you are looking after. In all humility I
commend that.

Best wishes,

Charles Sharpe

...

Very interesting situation Dave, thank you for sharing your
frustrations.

Of course it is ideal to have a perfect balance of
relationship/rapport-building, independence, freedom, choice, etc. and
rules & boundaries. How we strike that balance should be based on the
needs and goals of the youth we are supporting. My suggestion would be
to have a house meeting. Staff could express their observations about
some of the problems occurring in the home and ask the youth for their
perspective. Then ask the youth for their suggestions on how to restore
order in the home. Ask them to suggest their own rules and expectations
of each other and see how that goes. You may be surprised with how
insightful they are; most do not want to live in chaos and will have
some idea of how they would like the house to run. Youth are also held
accountable much more easily when they have contributed to their own
house expectations. Try to keep the meeting positive, with a focus on
their goals for how they want to live in the house with as little staff
input as possible. When staff do need to help or make suggestions for
rules, try to keep them as realistic as possible, and as real-life as
possible. Think about skills and rules for living that they will need to
follow when they are old enough to live independently that will help
them behave appropriately in society.

Where I currently work we have a relationship-focused philosophy too,
however there are still rules to follow and consequences for breaking
the rules. It's not perfect, but it seems to work well most of the time,
and we are forever adjusting as needs change and as our knowledge grows.
On the flip-side, I once worked in a very restrictive home, where every
single moment of the youths' lives were controlled by staff and program
rules. There were so many rules and consequences that the youth became
discouraged and gave up and rebelled. They had so many consequences
piled up that there was no way to get back on track and they felt
helpless. It was not realistic for preparing them for the "real world",
nor was it conducive to supporting them to lead healthier and more
positive lives. It is important not to overdo it too. We have such a
desire to protect vulnerable and at-risk youth that we sometimes go
overboard and forget that they are still ordinary youth in many ways and
deserve the opportunity to make their own mistakes and learn the "hard"
way just as most of us did in our own lives.

Sorry if this seems like a rant, I am passionate about this subject
:) I recently moved from Ontario to Manitoba, where we have the
Vulnerable Persons Act (VPA)
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/v090e.php that I
think should be implemented everywhere. I have seen how controlling
people in care can be so harmful and how building relationships and
allowing independence can be so liberating and helpful.

Good luck and please keep us updated on your progress.

Sincerely,

Jillian Enright, CYW
Winnipeg, Manitoba

...

Hi Dave

I don't think that it is in the best interests of children that they
should have no structure and rules. Rules are to ensure safety that
leads to a set of expected behaviour. It is not to late for you to start
setting rules and creating structure. As you state that the situation is
now a free for all, this can be turned around. You should start by
asking the boys as to what kind of rules they would like to live by that
are acceptable to all and consistent with accepted norms in their
society or community. The rules should also have consequences that are
age appropriate for the boys and linked to their own development. Then
you should have a platform where the rules can be discussed on a regular
basis. I would also advise that you use one of the boys with strong
leadership abilities to orientate the new boys regarding the rules. This
will foster a sense of ownership amongst that boys and put the
responsibility on them to live by the rules.

Regards

Alfred Harris

...

Check out the recent edition of the Reclaiming Youth at Risk
Journal. There are some good articles on the need and how to build
structure in agencies. No structure is structure, just what are you
teaching? Sounds like it might be time to get a new job or try something
out. But be sure to get management's approval for any changes because if
they are not on board they can sabotage your efforts and make your
experience feel more personal than it already is.

Peter De Long

...

Dear Lorraine

What a good reflection on the subject you have offered there!

I remember researching the question some years ago. Result:
institutions which use very structured and rigid rules fail to achieve
treatment results, and institutions being very laissez-faire and
unstructured also fail! Those who combine clear and simple structure
with a high degree of flexibility and dialogue have very fine results.

Rule of thumb: The level of staff satisfaction with colleagues,
leader and the organization decides the outcome of treatment for the
clients.

I have worked as a consultant for organizational development for many
years, and this is the essence of my experience. Have a look at the
global orphanage education project, just for fun:

I think that most would agree that "structure" is an essential
component for a child to heal and grow in a residential center, but it
also entails many traps for workers and programs. To be effective
structures should be simple and clear and be built to allow for maximum
flexibility regarding an individual's child needs. One important
guideline I would suggest is for every program to do a regular review of
all the structures/rules and make an honest assessment of "who is the
structure here for"? If the answer leans too heavily "for staff benefit"
instead of for benefit of the kids then the structure should be changed
because it is likely destined to fail anyway.

An example I have experienced around this involved bedtime when I
first became director of our girls' group home in our agency. The girls
ranged in age from 13 to 18 years and bedtime was 10:15 across the
board. Obviously it doesn't make much sense developmentally for a girl
who is 13 to go to bed the same time as an 18 year old so we quickly
concluded that was a structure in place for staff convenience (which is
not necessarily horribly wrong all the time, there are realities) and
changed the structure to individual bedtimes based on treatment plan for
each girl. We had the predictable "it is not fair" struggles at first,
and some staff resistance to the extra work, but soon it settled and led
to a much more conducive atmosphere to meet the girls' individual needs.

A second example involves a program structure. In our center in New
York we ran a very successful grandparents' program where seniors from a
local center visited weekly with our 8 year old group to play board
games, talk, etc. On a trip to California a colleague in an agency
similar to ours indicated they had a similar program, but it was having
many problems and he wanted some advice. As I talked with the workers
there about their program I was having trouble seeing why there was so
much difficulty as it was structured so similar to ours. Then, I asked
an innocent question "what time does the program take place?" They
answered "3:15 to 5pm" on Wednesdays. Now the problem seemed evident
(after a full day of school 8 year olds will want to eat snacks, run and
play to burn off the pent up energy and not play checkers with a
grandparent figure!) and I asked why that time. They replied "it is the
only time the van is available at the senior center to drive them here".
So, again, a structure set up for the adults needs as opposed the kids'
needs has predictable difficulty.

As you go forward I suggest you build in these self assessment
reviews into the program.

Frank Delano
Hawthorne, New York

...

I'm enjoying this conversation, and the one on wages/professional
recognition, and see some links between them. I had the good fortune to
work on the same inpatient unit, with the same clinical director, and
the same core of staff for 15 years. I learned first-hand what I believe
to be some of the pearls of this field.

In working with adolescents it is vital to learn fluidity, and a
balance between firmness and flexibility. Rules are best thought of as
guidelines, they had best be clear, concise, and as much as possible
youth should be aware of, and involved in the process by which they come
into being. Consequences need to be fair, and applied in a timely
fashion, and adults should not expect to be thanked or embraced for
them. None of us like hearing "no", even when it's the right answer.

Equally important is the notion that those involved in the endeavour
of being with or treating or caring for young people need to feel
respect and concern towards each other, and the people who lead them,
and administrate the circumstance. Cliche as it may sound, shit really
does roll down hill. When we don't care for and respect each other, and
the people who lead and administer, the youth suffer. (I just saw the
film "Doubt" with Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep, and this
demonstrates this clearly). Experience teaches me that when this respect
and care is lost, a knee-jerk reaction is to "rewrite" or "tighten up"
on rules, and get in the face of the youth.

This said, wages and working conditions are often a clear expression
of the respect and care offered to the individuals working with the
youth. Another perhaps more important is regular constructive
supervision. Experience teaches me that it is a challenge to find and
maintain all of these conditions in one place of employment.

Michael Wattie, CYC, cert
Intake Worker, MHPSU

___

_____

THE INTERNATIONAL CHILD AND YOUTH CARE NETWORK (CYC-Net)
Registered Non-Profit and Public Benefit Organisation in the
Republic of South
Africa (031-323-NPO, PBO 930015296)